Twitch Updates Its Nudity and Attire Policy With More Specific Rules

Twitch updated its Nudity and Attire guidelines after much backlash over previous vague policies that said streamers should dress in attire “appropriate for public settings.”

The new policies ban full and partial nudity, including exposed genitals or buttocks. It also says women must cover nipples and not expose underbust, though cleavage is unrestricted.

Situational expectations were made for breastfeeding, swimming and beaches, concerts, IRL streams, body art, and more.

While some have welcomed the new specific rules, many argue that they continue to allow people to scrutinize women by policing their bodies.

Problems With Twitch’s Previous Nudity Policy

Twitch updated its policies around nudity and attire on Tuesday, giving its most specific guidelines to date about how much skin a streamer can show on the platform.

For years now, Twitch has faced backlash over so-called “boobie streamers,” which is a term essentially used to describe female streamers who are suspected of luring in viewers with their looks and sexually suggestive content.

However, the problem is that oftentimes, women who wear what some consider provocative clothing are sometimes looped into that category as well, like fitness streamers or cosplayers.

Twitch has tried to crack down on nudity and sexually suggestive content in general, but it has struggled to lay out clear policies that satisfy its users. Previous vague attempts instead put several creators in gray areas, like those who do body art or outdoor streams.

The platform previously said that streamers should dress in attire that is “appropriate” for public settings, “such as what you would wear on a public street, or to a mall or restaurant.”

This really didn’t clear things up for people since what someone finds appropriate is subjective. For example, leggings and a sports bra might be considered appropriate to some, but it can be perceived as something different by someone else.

Twitch has made it clear that it doesn’t want to allow pornography on its platform, but some say that its guidelines were inconsistently applied. Many argued that the rules often allowed for misogynists to rally against streamers they didn’t like and sometimes, streamers who tried to play by the rules were punished.

In February for instance, body painting artist Forkgirl was suspended for violating the nudity policy, despite believing she did nothing wrong. She thought her suspension might have been prompted by trolls mass reporting her content. Twitch later said her chest was not adequately covered but reinstated her after recognizing her “good faith attempt” to comply with their policies.

Folkgirl and others have called for more transparency from Twitch, asking for more precise information about what guidelines they’re breaking so they can avoid doing so.

Twitch Announces New Policies

Well, this time around Twitch laid out more specific policies, saying in a blog post, “Our previous policy relied on an assumed shared understanding of what is appropriate in specific contexts. Establishing a standard for coverage reduces the policy’s reliance on an assumed single definition of contextually acceptable. ”

Twitch’s said it does not allow any steamers to be fully or partially nude, “including exposing genitals or buttocks.”

“We do not permit the visible outline of genitals, even when covered. Broadcasting nude or partially nude minors is always prohibited, regardless of context,” it added.

The updates then specifically addressed women, saying, “For those who present as women, we ask that you cover your nipples. We do not permit exposed underbust. Cleavage is unrestricted as long as these coverage requirements are met.”

On top of those rules, it says all streamers must cover the area extending from their hips to the bottom of their pelvis and buttocks. As far as areas of the body where coverage is required, it said, “the coverage must be fully opaque – sheer or partially see-through clothing does not constitute coverage.”

“Augmented reality avatars that translate real-life movement into digital characters are subject to this standard, as is cosplay and other costumes.“

However, the new guidelines do provide some exceptions, noting that some situations call for attire that is prohibited in their standard guidelines. Their list of contextual exceptions includes:

IRL streaming

Swim and beaches, concerts and festivals

Body Art

Context transitions

Embedded media, studio and other Twitch-endorsed content

Breastfeeding

More specifics about each expectation are listed in the updated community guidelines page, but essentially the rules still say that even in these cases, streamers must still make sure to have opaque coverage over their nipples, buttocks, and genitals. However, standard chest coverage rules do not apply to those breastfeeding on stream.

“This list is not exhaustive,” the update states, “and we will update it periodically as the community’s needs evolve.”

Twitch also said it has added a clarification to its Sexually Suggestive Content policy writing, “We continue to evaluate attire and sexual content separately and as always, sexually explicit and suggestive content are prohibited on Twitch. To further clarify our stance, we’ve added concrete examples of content considered sexually suggestive. Again this list is not exhaustive but seeks to minimize uncertainty about our expectations and considerations when our safety operations team is making evaluations.”

The community guidelines now ban explicitly sexual behaviors, including erotic dancing, simulated sex acts, and pole dancing with “a sexual framing,” among other content.

The new policies went into effect immediately and Twitch noted in its blog post that old suspensions still stand. “Although your content may not violate the new policy, it violated the guidelines in place when the enforcement was issued,” it said.

As far as older content that violates the new policy, Twitch is giving users until May 1 to evaluate and remove videos themselves. “After that time, if reported, we will remove the content, but no other enforcement actions will be taken against the channel.”

While some have welcomed the specific guidelines, some say they allow people to continue to scrutinize women by policing their bodies.

Finally some guidelines for body painters and cosplayers to know what is and isn’t allowed. Instead of guessing or being banned for no explained reason. Thank you twitch!

Thank you so much Twitch for putting down these much more specific guidelines of what is and isn’t permitted. This will make it much easier for everyone to know what is and isn’t allowed. Body painters thank you! ❤️

After the post was hit with massive backlash, the teen took it down. She also posted to her Instagram saying she was “really sorry” and “never wanted to hurt anyone’s feelings.”

And she added that she had never heard of blackface before posting the look. “I only wanted to send a message against racism, but I did it wrong. I’m only 16 and have to learn much more about the world history.”

This teen is far from the only person who’s been slammed this type of makeup. Other artists have created looks using the Black Live Matter fist or phrase, and some have designed theirs around the words “I can’t breathe.”

That particular phrase is widely recognized as the final words spoken by Floyd as a white officer pressed his knee into his neck. They were also the last words spoken by Eric Garner, who was choked to death by police in 2014. Since their deaths, the phrase has become rallying cry used to fighting against police brutality and racial injustice.

One artist that included the phrase in her look took it a step further. As she lip-syncs over the Gotye song “Somebody That I Use to Know,” she releases a hand from her neck to show a bloody print.

That sentiment was also echoed by fellow YouTuber Patrickstarr who said, “I know a thing or two about makeup. But drawing ‘I can’t breathe’ on your face is NOT it.”

Y’all… I know a thing or two about makeup. But drawing “I can’t breathe” on your face is NOT it. I know other influencers have mentioned it, I’m here to echo it again for you. STOP. Please sign petitions and DONATE. Check out @blackvisionsmn@reclaimtheblock@NAACP_LDF

Some Defend Artists

Still, some have tried to defend the artists, arguing that they were just trying to voice their frustrations through their art.

One Twitter user actually responded to Alissa Ashley saying, “this is why the country is as divided as it is. Why cant we just understand that raising awareness to situations are never an easy subject some people only have one voice and its through their creative sides.”

Ashley hit back at that user writing, “Raising awareness isn’t using fake blood to appear beaten up. It’s not using a darker shade of foundation to show your solidarity. It’s not writing a dying mans last words on your lips. Black peoples trauma/reality isn’t a makeup trend. Like y’all can’t possibly be this dumb”

Raising awareness isn’t using fake blood to appear beaten up. It’s not using a darker shade of foundation to show your solidarity. It’s not writing a dying mans last words on your lips. Black peoples trauma/reality isn’t a makeup trend. Like y’all can’t possibly be this dumb https://t.co/LPrBuJgPiv

She then dismissed responses from people who say they aren’t sure what to do, saying “TWITTER IS FREE AS FUCK. You see us tweeting the petitions to sign. The places to donate. What kind of drug do you gotta be on to be like ‘oh I know what to do. Let me go grab my darker foundation & ben nye stage blood’”

Talking about some “what else are we supposed to do”. TWITTER IS FREE AS FUCK. You see us tweeting the petitions to sign. The places to donate. What kind of drug do you gotta be on to be like “oh I know what to do. Let me go grab my darker foundation & ben nye stage blood”

Another makeup artist known as ZayBayBay argued that the makeup looks are actually triggering to black people. Someone then challenged her opinion by saying, “It can’t be any more triggering than seeing Donald Glover shoot up an entire black church choir in his music video. Makeup artists are allowed to creatively express themselves the same way. It raises awareness, which is the bottom line.”

It can't be any more triggering than seeing Donald Glover shoot up an entire black church choir in his music video. Makeup artists are allowed to creatively express themselves the same way. It raises awareness, which is the bottom line.

Ultimately, she said that she is beyond her art and knowns “when it’s time to put the brush down and do something productive instead of focusing 5 hours on a makeup look.” But still, she said she respects others’ opinions on this matter.

And especially after #BlackoutTuesday, a lot of people have been concerned about performance activism that does nothing meaningful for the black community.

There are some people who point out that these makeup looks are coming from a good place. Others say that if done tastefully and in combination with other efforts, they can help keep people talking about racial injustice. But it seems like most people online are not on board with these types of looks and want to see action, not more awareness.

Twitter put a warning message over a Tweet from President Donald Trump Thursday which it said “glorifies violence.”

In that tweet, Trump criticized the nationwide protests over the killing of George Floyd, warning that“when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”

The move escalated tensions between Trump and Twitter. Last week the feud prompted Trump to issue an executive order aimed at restricting social media platforms’ ability to police their own content.

Employees at Facebook, which did not issue any sort of warning for the exact same post, are furious at CEO Mark Zuckerberg for allowing that post to remain.

Facebook Employees Angry

Twitter angered President Donald Trump last week after issuing warnings on several of his tweets, and now, Facebook employees are now targeting their CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, for not doing the same.

Twitter’s issued a fact-check warning on Trump’s May 26 tweets, which falsely claimed that increased access to mail-in voting will lead to extensive voter fraud.

Then, Thursday night, the company followed up by hiding a different tweet from the president that it said “glorifies violence.”

Notably, these are the first instances where Twitter has corrected or censored Trump, something many have called on them to do for years.

Facebook, however, has stuck to its policy to not censor the president’s speech, even if it could be interpreted as violence.

“I’ve been struggling with how to respond to the President’s tweets and posts all day,” Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a post on Friday. “Personally, I have a visceral negative reaction to this kind of divisive and inflammatory rhetoric.”

“But I’m responsible for reacting not just in my personal capacity but as the leader of an institution committed to free expression,” he added.

“I disagree strongly with how the President spoke about this, but I believe people should be able to see this for themselves, because ultimately accountability for those in positions of power can only happen when their speech is scrutinized out in the open.”

Zuckerberg’s post was yet another defense of his long-held stance regarding the platform’s responsibility to censor violent speech and misinformation from politicians.

Still, Zuckerberg’s unwavering stance has resulted in a number of Facebook employees publicly disagreeing with their boss.

“Inaction is not the answer,” employee Diego Mendes said on Sunday. “Facebook leadership is wrong.”

@DiegoMendes

Other employees continued to take to Twitter to express their opposition to Zuckerberg’s philosophy, one saying, “I work at Facebook and I am not proud of how we’re showing up. The majority of coworkers I’ve spoken to feel the same way. We are making our voice heard.”

I work at Facebook and I am not proud of how we’re showing up. The majority of coworkers I’ve spoken to feel the same way. We are making our voice heard.

Censoring information that might help people see the complete picture *is* wrong. But giving a platform to incite violence and spread disinformation is unacceptable, regardless who you are or if it’s newsworthy. I disagree with Mark’s position and will work to make change happen.

Disappointed that, again, I need to call this out: Trump's glorification of violence on Facebook is disgusting and it should absolutely be flagged or removed from our platforms. I categorically disagree with any policy that does otherwise.

During the virtual protest, The New York Timesreported that two senior employees threatened to resign if Zuckerberg does not change course on Facebook’s policy.

“We recognize the pain many of our people are feeling right now, especially our Black community,” a Facebook spokesperson told CNBC in a statement Monday. “We encourage employees to speak openly when they disagree with leadership. As we face additional difficult decisions around content ahead, we’ll continue seeking their honest feedback.”

Zuckerberg will meet with his staff Tuesday to discuss disputes over those posts, moving his weekly meeting up from Thursday in response to the walkout.

Twitter Flags Trump Tweet

Trump’s tweet Thursday was critical of the protests that became violence following the death of George Floyd.

In the first of two tweets, Trump says he can’t stand by and watch the situation in Minneapolis. He goes on to jab Mayor Jacob Frey for being a “weak radical left mayor.”

But that tweet was never flagged. It was actually Trump’s second tweet that Twitter targeted because, in it, Trump said, “…when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”

“This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence,” Twitter wrote above the tweet, which is hidden and must be clicked into while on the site. “However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible.”

I can’t stand back & watch this happen to a great American City, Minneapolis. A total lack of leadership. Either the very weak Radical Left Mayor, Jacob Frey, get his act together and bring the City under control, or I will send in the National Guard & get the job done right…..

While Twitter did not delete the tweet, it has disabled all likes and replies on the post. Currently, the only way to directly share the tweet is to retweet it with a comment.

Early Friday morning, Twitter followed up with another statement, where it explained that the tweet violated “policies regarding the glorification of violence based on the historical context of the last line, its connection to violence, and the risk it could inspire similar actions today.”

This Tweet violates our policies regarding the glorification of violence based on the historical context of the last line, its connection to violence, and the risk it could inspire similar actions today. https://t.co/4efPqNLBCX

As many online have also noted, the phrase “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” carries with it a deeply dividing history.

It’s first known use was in 1967 by Miami police chief Walter Headley to describe his department’s plans to crack down on protests in black neighborhoods. According to historians, that phrase was even considered to have contributed to the city’s race riots in the late 1960s.

White House Quotes Censored Trump Tweet

In opposition to Twitter’s decision, Friday morning, the White House Twitter account quoted Trump’s censored tweet. That tweet then got hit with the same warning.

The White House later posted another tweet defending the president, saying he didn’t glorify violence.

“He clearly condemned it,” the account said. “@Jack [Dorsey] and Twitter’s biased, bad-faith “fact-checkers” have made it clear: Twitter is a publisher, not a platform.”

The President did not glorify violence. He clearly condemned it.@Jack and Twitter's biased, bad-faith "fact-checkers" have made it clear: Twitter is a publisher, not a platform. https://t.co/lTm3Pxxaqg

In addition to the White House, Trump continued his battle against Twitter Friday morning in a series of tweets that accused the site of having an anti-conservative bias.

Twitter is doing nothing about all of the lies & propaganda being put out by China or the Radical Left Democrat Party. They have targeted Republicans, Conservatives & the President of the United States. Section 230 should be revoked by Congress. Until then, it will be regulated!

“The President has been targeted by Twitter.” @MariaBartiromo What about all of the lies and fraudulent statements made by Adam Schiff, and so many others, on the Russian Witch Hunt Plus, Plus, Plus? What about China’s propaganda? WHO’s mistakes? No flags? @foxandfriends

“Looting leads to shooting, and that’s why a man was shot and killed in Minneapolis on Wednesday night – or look at what just happened in Louisville with 7 people shot,” Trump also said in defense of his original comment. “I don’t want this to happen, and that’s what the expression put out last night means.”

“It was spoken as a fact, not as a statement. It’s very simple, nobody should have any problem with this other than the haters, and those looking to cause trouble on social media. Honor the memory of George Floyd!”

….It was spoken as a fact, not as a statement. It’s very simple, nobody should have any problem with this other than the haters, and those looking to cause trouble on social media. Honor the memory of George Floyd!

Trump’s Executive Order

Prior to posting this original comment on Thursday, Trump signed an executive order aiming to restrict social media platforms’ ability to police their own content.

Following this, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey promised to continue issuing fact-checks and even warnings against Trump if he’s found in violation of Twitter’s policies.

On Friday, prompted by journalists, Google released a statement saying that undermining the statute that affords platforms their freedoms to moderate their content would “hurt America’s economy and its global leadership on internet freedom.”

Still, both Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Representative Matt Gaetz have promised to introduce legislation that would roll back this statue. For his part, Trump has been very receptive of that idea.

However, there have been a number of reports that any restriction could face major hurdles with the Federal Communications Commission as well as in court over whether such a move would impinge on speech freedoms.

YouTuber Myka Stauffer Slammed for Placing Autistic 4-Year-Old With New Adoptive Family

YouTuber Myka Stauffer and her husband James, who adopted an autistic boy from China in 2017, announced that they have decided to permanently place the toddler with a new adoptive family.

In their announcement video, the couple said medical professionals and the adoption agency felt it was best to find a better fit for the boy after several evaluations.

However, many people are outraged by the decision, accusing the family of exploiting the child and his story for sponsorships and monetized videos, then giving up on him because of his special needs.

The Stauffer’s Announcement

A YouTube couple has been flooded with criticism since announcing that they have permanently placed their autistic 4-year-old in another home, after adopting him from china years ago.

Myka Stauffer runs a YouTube channel with over 700,000 subscribers where she posts videos about home organization, her experience as a mother, and more. She also posts vlogs on a separate family channel that has over 300,000 subscribers.

For years Myka and her husband James have shared intimate details about their lives as parents, from pregnancies to births and beyond. One of the most emotional experiences they’ve shared has been their international adoption journey. But the couple shocked fans Tuesday when they confirmed that their 4-year-old son Huxley had been placed with a new adoptive family.

The Stauffer’s adopted Huxley from China in October 2017, and the video of him being brought home is actually the most viewed video on Myka’s channel, with over 5.5 million views.

But in their tearful video update, James said that Huxley has been in numerous therapy treatments over the last few years to help with his severe special needs. Myka has previously said he has reactive attachment disorder and level 3 autism, though the adoption agency initially told her he had brain damage and a brain tumor.

According to James, over the last year specifically, Huxley’s therapy sessions have been more intense.

“After multiple assessments, after multiple evaluations, multiple medical professionals had felt that he needed a different fit and that his medical needs…he needed more,” Myka explained.

Fans have been asking about Huxley for months, as he hasn’t appeared on any of their social media posts. Some have even made Instagram accounts dedicated to finding answers about his whereabouts.

So as far as why they have waited to announce the news, James said, “It’s because we’ve been trying to protect his privacy, his rights, and also just try to not mess up his future that was laid out in front of us. We’re trying to just make sure we don’t impact that at all when making this video.”

Myka also explained that she tried to share as little as she could about Huxley’s situation because of this. “Anything that happened in the home that was hard for Hux, that’s not fair for me to put there publicly. That’s his privacy. So we’re not going to talk about that. It’s not appropriate and it’ll never be appropriate. I didn’t adopt a little boy to share these things publicly.”

She also said that they’ve waited to talk about this because medical professionals have been allowing Huxley to spend time with different people to help him find his “new forever family.” Based on the updates they’ve received, it appears that Huxley is now in a home that the adoption agency feels is the best fit, with a parent who has medical professional training.

Still, the couple said they’re grieving and tried to help him as much as possible because they never wanted to be in this position. “Do I feel like a failure as a mom? Like 500 percent,” Myka said.

“So when I get like insidious, hurtful comments, it just really makes it hurt worse. It’s not about me at all, but it’s just like this journey, the last couple months, has been like the hardest thing I could’ve ever imagine going to – choosing to do.”

The couple closed by asking their followers to respect their privacy and understand that they are hurting, even if they are seen on social media in positive spirits.

Backlash

So after this news was announced, many people took to the comments section and social media sites to expressed sadness for Huxley. However, plenty of people also slammed the couple for their decision.

“I’m sorry but you did fail as a mum. You wouldn’t have given up your own child,” one commenter wrote.

“Autistic children aren’t puppies. They don’t have ‘forever families.’ They don’t get ‘rehomed.’ They get abandoned,” another Twitter user said.

Autistic children aren’t puppies. They don’t have “forever families.” They don’t get “rehomed.” They get abandoned.

On top of that, there are a ton of people who feel that the couple exploited Huxley for their channel, pointing to the fact that they monetized adoption videos and took sponsorships for them.

My heart aches for poor Huxley. They dragged this poor little boy all the way from China, making him start all over again, then giving up on him🥺80% of her followers she gained from the adoption story, got sponsorships and her subs even funded the trip to China #mykastauffer

According to Myka’s channel, she has shared 27 videos about their adoption journey, which included updates and Q&A about the process. The vlog channel currently has no content on it, though it’s unclear if videos were recently changed to private following all of the outrage.

In other videos, Myka promoted a fundraiser for helping Huxley’s needs. And in a 2017 video, she said every person who donated $5 would unlock a different piece of a 1,000-piece puzzle, which would, at the end, be a photo of Huxley that she would reveal to the world. She also said she would write the names of all donors in his baby book.

Others have slammed Myka because she was viewed as an adoption advocate who wrote for parenting blogs and magazines.

Unconfirmed Response

There is a screenshot of a pinned YouTube comment that was allegedly written by Myka circulating online, however, that comment is not currently pinned under her video so it cannot be confirmed as real.

But it says that the family, “would never just give up a child with special needs, this is a personal matter to Hux it had nothing to do with he just had Autism.”

“Multiple scary things happened inside the home towards our other children, if these events happened with one of my biological kids, after all the help and after the behaviors we witnessed sadly we would have no other choice then to seek help and get their needs met.”

Oh yes. Non verbal huxley told you i dont want to live with you guys no more send me to these strangers so that i can be traumatized even more in my little life. #mykastaufferpic.twitter.com/qK2Hn2Btl0

The comment claims that Huxley “wanted this decision 100%,” adding, “We sat that in family time with other people, he constantly choose them and signed and showed tons of emotion to show us and let us know he wanted this.”

As of now, there have been no further statements about the announcement, and the adoption videos still appear on Myka’s YouTube channel. Myka has not returned Rogue Rocket’s request for a comment on the issue.